|
A version of this essay was first published in The Daily Reckoning.
There is an important point investors should be aware of, which may have been
overlooked during the peaceful and financial bubble years of the 1990s: wartimes
are common in the history of the world; it is times of peace that are the exception.
According to the historian Will Durant, war is one of the constants of history,
and has not diminished with civilization or democracy. In the last 3,421 years
of recorded history, only 268 have seen no war.
Just look at the period between 1895 and 1918. During this brief span of years,
there were continuous conflicts around the world, including the Russo-Japanese
War (1895), the war between Turkey and Greece over Crete (1897), the Spanish-
American War of 1898, the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, the military expeditions
of the great powers in China in 1900, the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), the
Russian Revolution of 1905, the Turkish Revolution of 1908, the French military
expedition in Morocco (1907), the military conflict between Italy and Turkey
over Tripoli (1911), the First Balkan War (1912), the Second Balkan War (1913),
the Chinese Revolution of 1911, the First World War (1914- 1918), the February
Revolution in Russia (1917), the October Revolution and the Russian Civil War
(1917-1921).
According to Durant, the causes of war are the same as the causes of competition
among individuals: acquisitiveness, pugnacity, and pride; the desire for food,
land, materials, fuels, and mastery. The state has our instincts without our
restraints. The individual submits to restraints laid upon him by morals and
laws, and agrees to replace combat with conference, because the state guarantees
him basic protection in his life, property, and legal rights. The state itself
acknowledges no substantial restraints, either because it is strong enough
to defy any interference with its will, or because there is no super-state
to offer basic protection, and no international law or moral code wielding
effective force.
As to the causes of the Iraq war, I leave them to the reader to ponder.
I am not necessarily suggesting that the next 20 years will be as turbulent
as the first 20 years of the 20th century. But we must realize that the late
1980s and 1990s were extremely unusual from a historical point of view, since,
aside from some minor conflicts, there were no major wars or revolutions. So,
purely from a probability point of view, investors should not expect the relatively
peaceful time that has followed the Korean War, and especially the peace dividend
we have enjoyed over the last 15 years or so, to continue forever.
The peace dividend that followed the end of the cold war was certainly a contributing
factor to higher stock valuations around the world (declining interest rates
and rising profits aside). If the world is now moving into an era of increased
tensions, then this will be an additional negative factor for equity valuations.
Moreover, during the relatively peaceful 50 years that followed the Second
World War, trade as a percentage of GDP increased rapidly and peace allowed
a truly global capital market to be created, both of which factors were favorable
for economic development around the world. As a percentage of the world's GDP,
trade increased from around 5% in the 1950s to over 20% at present.
Moreover, since the creation of a truly global capital market in the late
1980s, international capital flows financed the investment boom in the emerging
economies in the early 1990s, and have in the last few years financed the excessive
consumption in the U.S., which is reflected by the growing American current
account deficit.
If we assume, therefore, that rising global trade and an increase in global
financial flows had something to do with peace around the world in the 1990s,
we should also assume that in the case of increased geopolitical tensions and,
especially, a major conflict, there could be some interruption in these favorable
trade and financial trends. In the worst case, severe geopolitical tensions
could lead to an interruption of free trade or of international financial flows
and bring about supply shortages, trade embargos or outright trade wars, the
imposition of foreign exchange controls, and even the freezing of assets held
by foreigners or, in an extreme case, their outright expropriation.
In short, the financial markets and financial intermediaries seem to me to
be particularly vulnerable, since they have become so disproportionately large
in comparison to the real economy. One point is clear to me. In the next major
conflict in the world, the derivatives market is most likely to cease to exist,
since financial institutions throughout the world hold derivative positions.
Therefore, if one major player somewhere in the world doesn't settle or fails
altogether, a vicious chain reaction could follow, with the result that the
markets will be closed.
It is not my intention to sound alarmist, but I think that investors who grew
up during the last 50 years have no idea of what unpleasant financial and economic
consequences might result from a major conflict. Throughout history, asset
freezes, the imposition of foreign exchange controls, and expropriations have
been very common, and I have no doubt that sometime in the future we shall
experience such emergency measures once again. Therefore, investors should
seriously consider diversifying not only their assets, but also how they hold
those assets.
To hold all of one's assets in one country with just one financial institution
may be imprudent in an age of rising risks of international conflicts. Consequently,
an investor may want to hold some of his assets in the U.S., but also consider
the ownership of assets through a foreign bank or the holding of real estate
in a foreign country.
Such diversified allocation is an important - if not essential - safeguard
against the negative consequences of major conflict.
|